Beware of opt-out provisions in tort settlement agreementsBy Stephen SoteloCivil Practice and Procedure, October 2013This article demystifies the opt-out provisions of the newly created Section 2-2301 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and warns practitioners what to look for when handling tort settlement agreements in the future.

Confidential settlements vs. non-settling defendants’ right to knowBy John J. KohnkeCivil Practice and Procedure, November 2012A look into the current approach taken by litigants and various Illinois courts in balancing the confidentiality clauses of settlement agreements and the remaining defendants' desire to obtain information regarding possible setoffs that they may be entitled to prior to trial or a preliminary pre-trial conference.

Case dismissed when plaintiff fails to sign settlement agreementBy Michael R. LiedLabor and Employment Law, October 2011In this case, the parties intended to enter into a settlement agreement and did so at the conclusion of an April 25, 2009 conference. In fact, the plaintiff affirmed her understanding of the settlement terms and indicated her acceptance of those terms on the record.

Parley—Settlement or something else?By Ambrose V. McCallLabor and Employment Law, October 2010When negotiating a settlement, what terms bind the parties, and what later interpretations produce non-binding “guidelines,” or something even less forceful?

Ready, the Plaintiff’s perspectiveBy Katharine ByrneBench and Bar, February 2009The Illinois Supreme Court’s opinion in Ready v. United/Goedecke Services, Inc. makes it possible for Illinois plaintiffs to enter into good-faith settlements with defendants without jeopardizing their case against a defendant that remains at trial or verdict.

Ready, the trial court’s perspectiveBy Hon. William D. MadduxBench and Bar, February 2009Recently, in Ready v. United /Goedecke Services, Inc., 2008 Ill. LEXIS 1439 (Ill. Nov. 25, 2008), the Illinois Supreme Court held that settling defendants should not be among the parties listed on jury verdict forms when those juries are asked to apportion fault.

Ready v. United/Goedecke Services, Inc.: A defense perspectiveBy Eugene A. Schoon and James R.M. HemmingsBench and Bar, February 2009In Ready v. United/Goedecke Services, Inc., the Illinois Supreme Court determined that a jury may not allocate fault to defendants who have settled prior to trial under the comparative fault provisions of 735 ILCS 5/2-1117.

When is a settlement a settlement?By Champ W. Davis, Jr.Alternative Dispute Resolution, March 2006Despite the wealth of case law enforcing oral settlements and the long-standing tendency of courts to favor compromise and settlement, the enforceability of an oral agreement reached at mediation appears to depend upon the location of the mediation.